We are flying but not until the end of the summer and from our smaller regional airport which fingers crossed is in better shape than the major ones… I have no idea what is up but every business I know cannot get and or retain staff. The govt just announced that anyone 18 and with only highschool van apt for passport and immigration jobs that pay 70 to 90 k…when would that have ever been heard of?? Those jobs were like gold and impossible to get unless you had a connection…
I’ve heard that Porter out of Billy Bishop is not having the same level of problems.
I was going to say the same thing. I think the idea of getting a new, very modern body that can really pull up the shadows is fine, but an alternative (and a much less expensive alternative at that) would be to add more light to the scene so you have more data to work with. I too was floored with how much better the clarity and colors looked when I started using a speedlite instead of just natural light. Obviously you can’t just use a speedlite in all situations (e.g. wide landscapes), but you can add light in other ways too (e.g. use a tripod for a longer exposure). Obviously this isn’t an appropriate solution for all situations, but I think it’s something worth considering in addition to the more obvious choice of buying newer equipment.
2 Likes
Good to know…I live in Hamilton and Swoop flies right to deer Lake near Gros Morne so I can avoid Toronto all together… still crossing my fingers :). Thanks for the tip
Just as a side note: while opticallimits.com is very good in their analysis, their verdict is very much centered on optical perfection. This might be good for some people who really need this but for myself I found that on the long run other aspects are at least as important as sharpness, vignetting, distortion and those aspects. For example I love my Fuji 16-80 F4 lens for its compactness and general versatility. Opticallimits rated this lens optically basically as trash - while I find that these weaknesses can all be worked around without much hassle.
3 Likes
In the end, specially as a hobby, I think enjoying the gear and wanting to take pictures with it is much more important than the rest. Who’s gonna look at a picture 20 years down the line and think “Damn, I wish my picture was 20% sharper”.
Specially in modern times where most lenses have more than acceptable image quality. With all the AI assisted image enhancing algorithms, in a few years we’ll probably be able to make up for that without much effort at all (if we even want).
4 Likes
I don’t disagree! That’s why I mentioned haptics and tactile feel and preempted my statement with “these tests have their limit” and then I mentioned optical characteristics…I should have made more clear that “fun to shoot with” and “practicality” are also immensly important when judging camera systems and lenses.
2 Likes
I do think opticallimits is still worthwhile even for the 16-80 (which I like very much as well). It shows us which areas will need special attention. For example, it shows us that the 16-80 has somewhat weak corners at the wide end, which I deem perfectly acceptable in a travel lens; but it means I’ll try to zoom in somewhat for panos, for example, and stop down the long end where possible.
Just don’t take their verdict as a measure of holistic lens quality. I read them as an evaluation of a lens’ optical quality.
2 Likes